In addition to new App Store software, National Public Radio and The Wall Street Journal also plan to create specific versions of their Web sites completely devoid of Adobe Flash for iPad users.

This week Peter Kafka with MediaMemo revealed that both NPR and the Journal will convert at least some portions of their Web site to load properly on the iPad. The custom-built sites will feature the same content and run concurrently with the traditional and iPhone/mobile-friendly versions of each Web site.

"Visitors to the newspaper's front page will see an iPad-specific, Flash-free page," Kafka said of the Journal's iPad Web site. "But those who click deeper into the site will eventually find pages that havent been converted."

The news comes weeks after Virgin America revealed it dropped Flash content from its new Web site in order to allow users with iPhones to check in for flights.

But the Journal and NPR are both also creating App Store software specifically for the iPad, suggesting that content providers are taking a multi-pronged approach to Apple's forthcoming multimedia device. Kinsey Wilson, head of digital media for NPR, declined to give Kafka an advance look at the organization's forthcoming iPad application or Web site, but did provide a hint as to what the experience could be like.

"Wilson says that while iPhone apps are a 'very intentional experience' --you load the thing up and seek out specific content -- he thinks the iPad will be a 'lean back device,'" Kafka wrote. "That's traditionally the distinction multimedia types use to differentiate between a computer and a TV. Intriguing."

The exclusion of Adobe Flash from the iPad and subsequent comments attributed to Apple co-founder Steve Jobs, in which he allegedly called the Web standard a "CPU hog," have led to a considerable amount of debate over its merits and shortcomings.

Contributing to the conversation in January was Google, which added support for rival format HTML5 to the most popular video destination on the Internet, YouTube. The beta opt-in program is available only for browsers that support both HTML5 and H.264 video encoding. Apple, too, has placed its support behind HTML5.

For more on why Apple isn't likely to add support for Flash in the iPhone OS, read AppleInsider's three-part Flash Wars series.

I think they are rolling it out for the iPad for test first.
I am pretty sure it will become their standard as time goes by.
No one in their right mind would want to maintain 2 versions of the same site.

You know, even with only 10 people in their tech department, it shouldn't be very difficult to transfer the entire site over to an iPad-ready state. I can't see much of the sense in coding the front page to work flawlessly, and ruin the experience when someone actually wants to read your article. It should be fairly simple to translate the front page experience throughout the entire thing once it has been done once. I'm not really sure how you could be a well-run business and say that you were only going to make a half-baked pie. That is really senseless to me. Go the whole way and just do it! Only by being intentional can you make a significant gain in this area.

Maybe this is an example of an industry-wide move away from Flash in favor of HTML5?

For video I think you are right. Even MS is moving away from Silverlight in IE9 with respect to video. There are lots of implications to consider in a big commercial site. Things like Flash ads that have a legacy format entrenched in contractual agreements, stock tickers, and a host of other Flash, Air, and Flex projects. So to truly be industry wide it would have to include a lot of behind the scene retooling.

Maintaining multiple sites is not that unreasonable especially if you have dynamic systems in place. These big sites have 1,000s of pages so they generally have the resources to do whatever they need to do.

I think it is pretty ironical that a lot of people who are all down on Flash and praising HTML5 have never output a line of code in their life. Yet when you go to jQuery.org where you would think there would be nothing but JS and HTML5 they are using Flash all over the place.

How does this effect your desktop experience? If anything it will improve it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ElmCityWeb

Maybe this is an example of an industry-wide move away from Flash in favor of HTML5?

It absolutely is. FTW even MSFT has a platform preview of IE9's capabilities including html5. although they have their own interpretation of HTML5 it seems.

obviously flash won't go away, but sites created with html5 do seem to be appealing to content creators with more and more popping up every day. It has to be the promise of the mobile audience that's luring them.

turtles all the way up and turtles all the way down... infinite context means infinite possibility

I think it is pretty ironical that a lot of people who are all down on Flash and praising HTML5 have never output a line of code in their life.

That's a pretty broad statement to be true. allot of us do write code and in fact it's been my experience that web devs are the biggest proponents of HTML5.

BTW. Just took a look at jquery.org and there doesn't seem to be any flash. Are you unfamiliar with code yourself? I know allot of our clients think we've used flash for animated menus etc. If I'm mistaken please share.

turtles all the way up and turtles all the way down... infinite context means infinite possibility

obviously flash won't go away, but sites created with html5 do seem to be appealing to content creators with more and more popping up every day. It has to be the promise of the mobile audience that's luring them.

Absolutely. I think if you look at the automotive industry you could draw some parallels. For example Flash is like the gasoline engine. Really powerful, with a huge infrastructure, but not very efficient. Sure pure electric cars are like pure HTML5. Lightweight, economical, low maintenance. But not really practical yet since the recharging infrastructure is not in place and they aren't very powerful. That is why the Hybrid became so popular. Not because it is an ideal technology but because it makes logical compromises.

I think that is how the Internet with respect to Flash is going to evolve. There will be a lot of sites that use a combination of technologies to accomplish their content delivery goals.

That's a pretty broad statement to be true. allot of us do write code and in fact it's been my experience that web devs are the biggest proponents of HTML5.

BTW. Just took a look at jquery.org and there doesn't seem to be any flash. Are you unfamiliar with code yourself? I know allot of our clients think we've used flash for animated menus etc. If I'm mistaken please share.

Here's something no one mentions - making flash assets SUCKS BALLS. The UI and basic methodology for building those project piles of cow-plop hasn't changed in TWENTY FIVE YEARS when it was called "VideoWorks". When Flash was aquired they stuck Videoworks / Directors interface on it - and it sucked like everything else birthed from the CD ROM world.

When the web started putting "multimedia" CDroms into the (well deserved) dustbin, application makers scrambled to migrate their crap (remember QuarkImmedia? No? Because it SUCKED) from the "immense waste of time and money" category to "let's waste time and money - on the INTERNET".

F--K THAT SH-T!

Everytime some jackass complains that Apple's products don't associate themselves with the biggest source of suck on the internet - I laugh my balls off.

i suspect that we'll see more announcements like this as we get closer to the release. then give us an opening weekend with good numbers and a hint of popularity among teens and suddenly all those movie tie-ins sites that are 99% Flash will suddenly be converted etc. After all the studios want the teen and tween girls to be sitting around (anywhere) checking out the latest adventures of Sparkly Vamp, Moody Girl and Bare Chest Boy

I just took a look at the IE9 stuff (and ran their demos in safari). I'm curious about your comment that they have their own interpretation of HTML5?

From what I can tell, they are actually supporting the standards, including attempting to pass acid3 (still work to do there) and css3 (looks compliant).

I'll be great if they actually fully support html5. It'll make life easier developing our web site.

The trick is going to be getting people to actually upgrade to IE9. We still get users on IE6.

LOL IE 6 is the bane of my dev's existence. We've basically stopped supporting it for most of our clients. They complained, but eventually stopped. A small problem with getting people to upgrade is that IE9 is not going to support windows XP. Those are old machines, but PC users seem to keep machines longer and not update frequently, leading us back to the IE 6 problem. Regarding MSFT's interpretation of HTML 5 MSFT feels they are waiting for the standard to solidify. Did you happen to see the ARS feature? It describes MSFT's choices in supporting specific standards vs. other browsers.

It's not my expertise by any stretch of the meaning, so here's a blurb that might describe it best...

""We love HTML5 so much that we want to do it right," Hachamovitch told Ars. Microsoft is putting a huge emphasis on HTML5 with IE9, but its approach is still very strict. Since HTML5 is not complete, and likely won't be anytime soon, the IE9 team is being very careful about which features it implements. Other browser makers aren't concerned about implementing a part of HTML5 one way in one version, then changing it in a subsequent version, and then changing it again... Redmond, on the other hand, is taking the same approach with IE9 as it did with IE8: support the current Web while pushing the new Web forward, according to Rob Mauceri, Principal Group Program Manager of IE. "Our approach to it is, let's really get the standard right," Mauceri told Ars. He admitted, however, that standards change and that it is quite likely there will be parts of HTML5 that change even after IE9 is released."

Did you happen to see the ARS feature? It describes MSFT's choices in supporting specific standards vs. other browsers.

It's not my expertise by any stretch of the meaning, but here's a blurb that sort of describes it best...

""We love HTML5 so much that we want to do it right," Hachamovitch told Ars. Microsoft is putting a huge emphasis on HTML5 with IE9, but its approach is still very strict. Since HTML5 is not complete, and likely won't be anytime soon, the IE9 team is being very careful about which features it implements. Other browser makers aren't concerned about implementing a part of HTML5 one way in one version, then changing it in a subsequent version, and then changing it again... Redmond, on the other hand, is taking the same approach with IE9 as it did with IE8: support the current Web while pushing the new Web forward, according to Rob Mauceri, Principal Group Program Manager of IE. "Our approach to it is, let's really get the standard right," Mauceri told Ars. He admitted, however, that standards change and that it is quite likely there will be parts of HTML5 that change even after IE9 is released."

But if it eventually passes the Acid3 test, it should have met a certain standard.

I take what Hachamovitch is saying as they aren't going to implement every feature until it really becomes the standard; rather than implement it, revise it and possibly revise it again. That's why the 55% (?) acid 3 test rating. They just want to "do it" once so they aren't going to use code that might change. Kind of like the Iphone OS's unofficial API's . There there, but Apple doesn't want anyone to use them because they might change.

turtles all the way up and turtles all the way down... infinite context means infinite possibility

It's taken a commercial device and another browser war to make a lot of people realise that serving something over HTTP does not make it a web site. If someone is dumb enough to cripple their web site by putting flash in it, more fool them.

So if Flash is overly dependand on CPU resouces and the code is bloated, can't Adobe rewrite Flash to be leaner and use less of the CPU. That's what Adobe is doing as we speak, Right?

They are trying to make it better, but it's my understanding that the big problem with their solution is they moved dependance from the CPU to the GPU, still optimizing flash for desktop and laptop PC's with independent GPU's.

Even if they make it better it would be hard to argue that flash support is a good fit for mobile devices/ netbooks that don't have the battery life to really support a GPU that is not on chip.

"Mobile" is the new holy grail in computing (Google just stated that they expect mobile advertising to outgrow all PC's and laptop's in a few years; is that a good reason to rip off Apple? ) so the pressure is put on adobe and flash because it generally doesn't run well or is simply more difficult to support than it's worth on mobil devices.

There's much more to it and I'm not sure I got it all correct, but that's all I got ATM.

turtles all the way up and turtles all the way down... infinite context means infinite possibility

There are more in the tutorials section but I don't care to list them all out for you.

Sorry, but I'm not seeing any Flash on that site either. I've got Click to Flash installed, so if it were there I'd see big gear icons or whatever. I haven't spotted any. Not even that video on the about page you linked earlier.

I think it is pretty ironical that a lot of people who are all down on Flash and praising HTML5 have never output a line of code in their life. Yet when you go to jQuery.org where you would think there would be nothing but JS and HTML5 they are using Flash all over the place.

I program about 85% to 90% flash. I like it a lot ... as a matter of fact I have at least 5 sites that are 100% flash. One html page with flash movies loading and unloading as needed.

I welcome flash's depart for one reason and one reason only.

MOBILE Sites

Not just talking iphone here. No mobile device parses it properly. Obviously this is a big issue for adobe ... if they don't hurry up, not sure it can survive in future.

All code for controlling the flash is in javascript via jQuery. Since John is at Mozilla and driving performance of Javascript with HTML5 on Mozilla I would expect two kinds of sites for jQuery, sooner rather than later.

One that queries the headers for HTML5 and one for XHTML1.0 Strict that the current site uses.

Of course a choice of video formats will be available and I'd bet flowplayer for HTML5 will evolve as well.